This is an interesting thread. If there is one thing in common among Linux users, it would probably be how little they have in common.

I think yer URL got pinched.

I think the answer to that at least is, yes. Redhat is pushing systemd and gets major funding from three letter government agencys. SystemD has no obvious benefits and quite a few technical drawbacks. Draw your own conclusions. Maybe they were watching development before, but now for all intents and purposes redhat is the government or at least representing and implementing the wishes of those who fund it, but dont beleive me, do some research and draw your own conclusions.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=redhat+nsa&t=ffsb
Iirc redhat has an entire subsidiary developing missle guidance software.

Thanks

Good for them. They've come a long way.

I can see a major branching of Linux users into "Big Distro Users" and the others who still roll their own or use grassroots distros.

It really comes down to package management. Do you want the convenience of easy automagic upgrades? If so, you use whatever "they" want you to use. systemd puts a lot of control in the hands of whoever supplies your packages. Who know what it does behind the scenes? As for selinux... don't get me started.

Strangely enough, frankbell's answer completely fails to show why any software must be forced on anyone else, least of all on anyone where any evidence it being better is not evident. If any superiority of it is completely non evident in my use of Linux why would I have no choice but to use it. And if it is evident to people running huge servers and server farms why are GUIs dependent on it? And is that comment addressing the init system or the strategic co-opting of other software?

1 members found this post helpful.

Simple answer: Because the developers of the distro you use have decided to use it. If you don't want it go for a different distro or implement the alternative you want for your distro of choice. It is not that distro developers owe you an alternative, after all.Because the features systemd offers make the life of DE developers easier and basically delivers them a standard set of features to build upon.

. . . and if you have ever managed a rack of about 150 computers, you most certainly do not want to have to deal with 150 separate little "configuration files."

Nobody "did anything [bad ...] to Linux" just because they felt like it. They did it in response to evidenced customer demand ... as first did the people who created these alternative tools in the first place ... as did the "distro" producers.

It really does make sense to a lot of real-world situations. "Never mind how they did it on the PDP-7." Having to make a bunch of individual settings to a bunch of individual, un-related files on a bunch of computers ... is a pain in the .

You didn't check my sig, did you? That's exactly what I am doing.

I can see how SOMEONE would want all computers to behave in the same way. I can also see that SOMEONE may not be who I am told it is.

1 members found this post helpful.

Ah, the good ol' conspiracy. How about just looking at it like it is in reality: in the open source world the ones deciding what should be done are the ones that actually do it. The developers are defining what Linux is, what Linux can do and so on, not some mysterious behind the scenes entity. The developers are defining how your distro works, they are choosing which base base they use for their own projects, if needed, they are setting the course. What happens if some "superior" body tries to steer a project in a way the developers don't like can actually be seen in the real world, for example with the mass exodus of developers from OpenOffice to LibreOffice back in the days.

... back to OP and the original question:

What I see happening to Linux is Growth. And all of that growth may not be in the ways you or I prefer.

I see the commercial application of Linux growing, so if you want to avail yourself of the benefits of that, you use whatever "Linux" flavor the suppliers of those benefits want to supply, and if that involves running software that you'd rather not run... *shrug*

I also see a growing "grass-roots" backlash against this commercial growth. I'm no purist, but the thing that I've always loved about Linux is that people created it out of the love of the art, and the frustration at the only alternatives.

Well, now we have Linux, and it's here to stay. Its inexorable movement has done what I knew would happen: industrial enterprises that have serious mission critical computing tasks use it. When the crew at JPL use Linux, that's good enough for me.

I can see a day in the not-to-distant future where "Linux" is just as stupidly commercial as those other OSes. At that time you'll likely see another fledgling OS sprout in it's place, maybe even based upon Linux, or the complete division of grass-roots Linux and mainstream Linux into separate and combative entities, much like punk rock and top 40 radio.

the future of Linux is BLACK!

im tired of strugglin with android phones and penguin: NO kies 4 linux, NO ODIN, no drivers for samsung, no this no the other blahblahblah ...

as resulted thousands and me r goin to instal win10 !!!

Good. One less luser to babysit.

That isn't necessary. Please review the LQ rules and refrain from making these kind of statements.

Regards...

1 members found this post helpful.